대여금
1. As to the Plaintiff’s KRW 34,374,610 and KRW 30,252,85 among them, the Defendant rendered the instant judgment from January 21, 2020.
1. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 16 and all pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff entered into a loan transaction agreement with the defendant on May 4, 2016 to obtain 30 million won, and the defendant did not pay interest on the above loan, thereby losing the benefit of June 26, 2019. As of January 20, 200, the unpaid principal of the loan under the loan transaction agreement is 30,252,85 won, overdue interest rate of 2,58 won and overdue interest rate of 11.79% per annum, 205% per annum from the following day to 208.15% per annum, the defendant did not pay the unpaid principal of the credit card to the plaintiff on November 20, 2014 to 208.15% per annum, 30% per annum, 25% per annum, 30% per annum 18.18% per annum, 2018.
2. The Defendant alleged that “The instant lawsuit constitutes duplicate litigation since the Defendant applied for individual rehabilitation as Busan District Court Decision 2019da109415, the instant lawsuit constitutes duplicate litigation.” However, the instant lawsuit cannot be deemed as duplicate litigation solely on the ground that the Defendant applied for individual rehabilitation, and further, the claim sought by the Plaintiff was confirmed as individual rehabilitation claims.